domain:betonit.substack.com
One of my thoughts on this issue is it highlights I am not a free speech absolutists. A quote from Godfather 2 highlights my view on this:
“Michael: The soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels aren't.
Hyman: What does that tell you?
Michael: They can win.“
When we had campus protests a decade ago I did not care. College kids being silly and they will grow up and take the corporate job and pop out a couple kids. Now I watch the protests and I see a future Supreme Court Judge, the executive team at Disney, and at worse a future HR executive whose rules I need to follow or I end up unemployed.
I do not care about your speech when I think it will just stay in academic circles or in fringe communities. Today I am increasingly pessimistic that it will stay only speech and instead fear that it will become the government. How does a liberal Democracy protect itself if it’s very values allow it to be attacked? Pacifism seems cool until the Mongol horde is outside your door.
It’s also made me greatly admire the Jewish community which seems capable of defending themselves while white people seem to just rollover when their interests are attacked. Judaism at its core is a people while White America’s core is the slave morality of Christianity. Conversion to Judaism in Christian white spaces is starting to become a small thing. Antonio Martínez García converted. There are rumors Milei wants to convert but has not for political reasons as the leader of a Catholic nation. If I was not a believer in Christ I would convert.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
16hr ago
Personally I would have annexed Gaza (and the West bank too for good measure) and made everyone there a citizen. Then treat any terrorists as common criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law. This would also solve the Haredim problem in one fell swoop (or at least delay it for two generations) and crush the Israeli far right because now there are an extra two million people who'll never vote for them.
In this scenario everyone wins except for the terrorists and far right nutters; both of which are groups that deserve to have a boot stamping on their face for eternity.
Grauwacht
17hr ago
This has got to be one of the most pointlessly evil bills ever. And I say this as someone who is very much not vegetarian.
You WILL kill ze pig. You WILL kill ze chicken. You WILL kill ze cattle. And you WILL be happy.
t3tsubo
23hr ago
The campus protests are run directly by the propaganda arm of Hamas?
Spicy lawsuit just dropped: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/05/National-Jewish-Advocacy-Center-the-Schoen-Law-Firm-and-the-Holtzman-Vogel-law-firm-vs-1.pdf
The American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) and the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) are accused of providing substantial assistance to Hamas. The plaintiffs, who are survivors and victims of Hamas's October 7, 2023 terrorist attack, are alleging that AMP and NSJP are Hamas's propaganda wing in the United States
Summary:
- AMP and NSJP are successor organizations to groups that were previously shut down or held liable for providing material support to Hamas.
- Within hours of the October 7 attack, AMP and NSJP allegedly disseminated a "toolkit" that identified them as "part of" Hamas's "Unity Intifada" and called for "confrontation by any means necessary," including "armed struggle."
- The groups allegedly instigated riots, violence, and chaos on American college campuses, recruiting students as "foot soldiers" to support Hamas through intimidation and fear tactics.
- AMP and NSJP are accused of providing crucial communication services to Hamas, which cannot legally hire American PR firms due to its terrorist designation.
- Hamas and other terrorist groups have publicly recognized and expressed appreciation for the support provided by AMP, NSJP, and their campus allies.
I can't exactly tell how much of this is BS and how much of it is real just from the claim but it is definitely going to be an interesting argument. I cannot wait for discoveries.
Even if the lawsuit is successful though, I can't see the US government really clamping down on campus protests. The whole situation has been an interesting case study for the rest of the world as to how to infiltrate/affect US political sentiment and public unrest though.
Lizzardspawn
23hr ago
That is good - as with GMO ban. My concern in both cases are the long tail effects on the human body. In Europe and US we can afford the traditionally produced and expensive calories. I prefer the third world to be a test bed for such innovations for a couple of generations.
SteveKirkland
7hr ago
Good lads, and the viciousness with which the New York Democrat machine is attacking them is evidence that they're registering as a threat. That legal saga is worth a post in itself if nobody's covered it yet.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
13hr ago
Modern new left liberalism is a very radical ideology that doesn't get sufficient negativity for it.
No it isn’t. The world bank, WHO, rules-based-international-order of neoliberalism? That’s about as nonradical as you can get. Aggressively not radical. It files the sharp edges off the communists and the reactionaries in order to keep things running a little more smoothly.
A South Africa that didn't allow parties like ANC and those more extreme, and such politicians found themselves in prison, and parties and organizations with such agenda banned
How do you think that’s enforced? How do you make sure the right people get suppressed? For every apartheid SA there’s a lovely Cambodia or North Korea or Rwanda descending into bloodshed. The best situation we’ve found, empirically speaking, is to weaponize tolerance. That’s liberalism.
Skibboleth
17hr ago
Free Market Conservatism strikes again. This is primarily about protecting the economic interests of agrarian elites, secondarily about visceral disgust, and little bit about aesthetic anti-environmentalism. Other reasons offered are not necessarily insincere, but they are... noncentral? Which is to say, having them conclusively disproven wouldn't change many minds.
“Although the FDA has said that this type of product is safe, that doesn’t mean it’s healthy,” Black said. “In Florida, we don’t want our citizens used as guinea pigs.”
Far be it from Florida to allow its citizens to pursue unhealthy habits.
Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association, called the bill a “win” for similar reasons. Although he said he doesn’t fear competition, he is concerned about chemicals in the new product.
-
But Rossmeissl and Shapiro said there’s little merit to health concerns, because cultivated meat has near identical nutritional value to real meat. Furthermore, conventional meat often has fecal and intestinal pathogens, and antibiotic residues, that need to be cooked out for safe consumption, Shapiro said.
SSCReader
13hr ago
The problem there of course is that Vegan groups don't speak for or represent the opinion of most people, probably even for most people who might think developing lab grown meat might be somewhat useful, but still are fine with also eating animals.
So you pre-emptively create a division that might not ever have been a problem. Now if I do think lab meat could be useful, you are driving me to have to side with the vegans, in order to oppose your ban! When my opinion is probably just sure, let's try it out, might be handy for feeding people and if it turns out to be cheaper then that's a good thing, but I am still gonna enjoy my regular ole cow-burger.
It's only a good tactic if the radical side really is strong enough to co-opt the moderates, and my experience is at least for veganism that is just not gonna fly. Otherwise you are actually spurring a coalition to form, that may have remained fractured.
vorpa-glavo
15hr ago
I mean, sure, people are pragmatic and meta-pragmatic all the time. I don't really see the point of this anti-lab grown meat bill, since I think meat eating is so culturally dominant that it won't be wiped out within our life times just because lab grown meat becomes affordable and widely available. More likely, vegetarianism will remain a costly social signal of a minority of people until the diet becomes indistinguishable from meat eating in terms of price and flavor, and then when it is practically effortless a law might eventually pass that bans animal slaughter altogether.
It's going to be exactly what happened with slavery. Banning slavery when an entire regional economy depends on it is difficult to accomplish, and probably requires a war and imposition of force. Living in a world where everyone has 200 to 8000 energy slaves thanks to electricity and industrialization makes being anti-slavery very easy, basically without cost to the individual. I think I would be more likely to see the point of slavery if I had to fetch my own water, grow, prepare and cook my own food from scratch, clean my clothes by hand, wash my dishes by hand, etc.
vorpa-glavo
16hr ago
Like there is no tactic that makes me instinctively hate someone more than a leftist who wants to mandate outcome B telling people that they shouldn't mandate outcome not-B because "mandates are wrong". It's pure "Darwin says whatever words make the meat puppets do what he wants," with zero respect for the target as a thinking human being.
This seems like a very strange thing to say. A vegetarian leftist who wants to mandate the end of animal slaughter wants to do so because they think it is unjustified violence, comparable to murder. But they understand that their values aren't universally shared, so they come up with more limited animal welfare arguments grounded in more commonly held values in the wider society they belong to. That's not demonstrating "zero respect for the target as a thinking human being" - it's being pragmatic about how to achieve some limited version of their goals and build a coalition in a representative liberal democracy.
Like, if a pro-choice person A is talking to a morally pro-life, politically libertarian person B, of course A is going to appeal to B's political libertarianism when it comes to discussing how the government should legislate around abortion, regardless of what other disagreements they might have. This isn't trying to turn other people into meat puppets to do your bidding, it's respecting and understanding other people enough to try and meet them where they're at in order to achieve a compromise outcome both of you can accept.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
20hr ago
Thankfully, Florida is not the only polity on the planet, and lab grown meat can still be marketed elsewhere when and if it becomes commercially viable. So this ban doesn't prevent the development of an alternative.
Jiro
21hr ago
In all of these cases, there's the same belief that the Americans being mind-controlled lack their own agency and that an utterly trivial investment on the part of foreign actors can create a completely inorganic belief system within the United States.
They can change the relative size and influence of existing movements even if they can't create movements from scratch.
doantkq
7hr ago
Interestingly, I got a very similar description of the castle when I asked ChatGPT to describe it.
doantkq
8hr ago
Last month, VDARE held its annual conference at the Samuel Taylor Suit Cottage, a beautiful castle constructed after the Civil War and recently purchased by the organization. VDARE is currently the subject of a lawsuit over its purchase of said castle.
For those unfamiliar, VDARE has been the leading anti-immigration outlet for the far right for roughly two decades. Historically, the website focused almost exclusively on immigration and "demographic replacement", with "race realism" and related topics (i.e., crime by African Americans) serving an ancillary function. This can be contrasted with Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, a publication more focused on American race issues. Unlike much of the far right, neither group takes an explicitly anti-Jewish stance, though VDARE has occasionally reposted or hosted antisemitic writers from Unz.
Given the growing influence of the alt-right/dissident right/whatever you want to call them into the conservative mainstream, I thought it might be helpful to summarise some of the speeches from the conference. This is taken from this article, which you can just read yourself.
An ever present personality at white nationalist adjacent events, Jared Taylor lamented the abolishment of confederate monuments:
our black secretary of defense ordered every trace of the Confederacy eradicated from federal land. We now know that President William McKinley and others of his generation who honored the valor and the sacrifice of Confederate soldiers were morally stunted. They didn’t have the exquisite ethical sensibilities of Lloyd Austin and Charles Schumer. . . . In our era there are many things that infuriate me, but of the most infuriating is the worms who don’t deserve to black the boots of a Confederate general prancing and howling and posing as their moral superiors.
Harrison Smith of Infowars, in appropriately conspiratorial fashion, said that policies of “infinite immigration forever” are meant to make opposition to technocratic power impossible. He suggested, for example, that one reason no one tries to impose “refugees” or antipollution measures on China — the world’s biggest polluter — is that the Chinese are already under effective control and threaten neither their own regime nor the ambitions of the World Economic Forum. The white population of the West, on the other hand, has “a heritage of resistance to tyranny,” which makes us the greatest threat to globalists’ plans. This is why they want “the destruction of whiteness,” where “whiteness” is defined as the European virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work, the nuclear family, and free expression.
Keith Woods, an antisemitic personality who has gained a large following on Twitter, also talked about the importance of immigration, pointing out that
immigration is “the queen of the battlefield,” meaning that if we lose on it, we lose on all other issues. There are people who disagree with us on immigration but who care about free speech and European traditions; they fail to understand that these things cannot be preserved unless we stop mass immigration.
James Kirkpatrick summarised the tenor of the conference best in his remarks:
One of the reasons we are so angry at what is being done to our country is that we see our patriotism — a kind of faith in our nation as something greater than the sum of its parts — being squandered and exploited. Cynics and sociopaths are rewarded, while those who have kept the faith are the first to be betrayed. If this keeps up, faith dies. Enormous sacrifices have been made for America and the other nations of the West, and people are now forced to ask what it was all for. The soldiers of World War II would never have laid down their lives for multiculturalism, but that is what they got.
A common enemy, however, may be an even stronger political advantage than a common faith. Democrats have a useful common enemy: white people. Republicans lose because they pretend not to have any enemies.
The current split on the Left about Israel is over the question of whether Israelis are white: both sides are our opponents. Republicans hoping to make political hay by denouncing anti-Semitism are wasting their time. We don’t need to take sides in this internal leftist fight, but to take our side, something no Republican seems able to understand.
Immigration is the issue that can unite us. Claims that immigration is good for us or for the economy quickly collapse, and yield to admissions that, yes, it is bad for us, but that is good because we deserve to be punished. Meanwhile, 45 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of Democrats support mass deportation. It takes tremendous Republican stupidity to fail to take advantage of this changing mood.
Mr. Hood asked: What matters more than nationality and citizenship — what matters when you are trying to get into a school, get a job, when you are confronted on the street? Race. This is certainly what our rulers believe. Politics is largely biological, and biology is our human hardware; religion and ideology are software. Law and institutions are passed down as the patrimony of a specific people, and work only for that people.
When Americans see Mexican demonstrators cursing them, waving Mexican flags, and celebrating the end of white America, it no longer matters what Republicans wants them to think. They see that the real issue is us vs. them. The visceral sense of identity they are forced to feel will rally our people for the struggle.
SteveKirkland
11hr ago
EA had 46 billion dollars in committed funding in 2021, and was growing at 37% per year, according to 80000hrs. If you could find white nationalists with that kind of clout, quoting them would be quite reasonable. And even I would be worried enough by that point to avoid getting a tan in case they won.
2rafa
17hr ago
Would this change things?
I suppose that depends on whether you consider the defining cause of the loss of white tribal identity to be those
anthropologists and social scientists
rather than something that precedes them.
What does Shia LaBeouf tell us, who has a much larger cultural influence?
I don’t think it tells us anything, but historically Jews converting to Christianity has been much more common than Christians converting to Judaism.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
17hr ago
Um. Ok. I've updated.
Having updated, I yield to anti-dan that they are more than just technichally correct. They are also correct. I'll also yield to you, for now- that the grazing fields can't be repurposed. I'm skeptical of this but I don't have the means to do a counterfactual analysis on every field at this time.
But as for factory farms, clearly you have a much stricter definition. I acknowledge that most cattle are not factory farmed their whole lives, and that the cattle in feedlots have more elbow room than in chicken factory farms.
but whatever you want to call these things: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Five+Rivers+Cattle+Feeding-+Interstate+Feeders/@42.2862795,-113.3138525,1875m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x80aaf6984afed193:0x249cafeffb8a8530!8m2!3d42.2831921!4d-113.3150227!16s%2Fg%2F1thkxj9_?entry=ttu
definitely exist, and are representative of the largest cattle finishing operations. In fact this is one of them. Now. the number of months spent here vary.
This company for instance claims that their cattle spend spring and summer grazing, then they spend 120 days in the feed lot. https://www.lazyt.com/the-story-of-your-beef
That's still over a third of their lives. And these numbers are fairly standard. 97% of cattle are grain finished, and that typically means something in the range of 6-15 months grazing followed by 4-6 months finishing. Depending on breed and operation.
Not all feed lots are the same, but the highest volume ones do look like this.
There. Is that accurate?
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
I would kill for a nice porterhouse.
You have that option, though it's quite difficult given the other work involved. Or you can just buy the ones where someone else has done the killing and all the rest for you. If you'd (literally) kill for a decent steak, there's no reason to be a vegetarian.
charles
22hr ago
The average person is much more likely to get themselves killed in the forest through ignorance, misadventure, or just bad luck, than any encounter with man or beast. There is in fact a dangerous person lurking in the woods; it's you.
aeqno
22hr ago
That would allow you to pretend you're not just another variety of socialist.
I thought it was interesting enough to repost and thought it would prompt a discussion. This forum is unique in that it has white nationalist fascists alongside liberals so responses are fascinating.
As for me, I have very little sympathy for the far right, but that doesn't mean I don't find what they say worth discussing.
For example, while immigration is a big issue in mainstream media, it is never discussed from a far right perspective. Take Elon Musk: he recently took on the Great Replacement Theory and came out recently in favor of basically unlimited immigration to combat plummeting birth rates. Musk is ostensibly painted as a right wing figure and here he is advocating for the effective destruction of ethnic Europeans. What the far right says to about thr Great Replacement Theory is very different, namely that it is no "theory" at all: replacing ethnic European majorities in order to mitigate identitarianism has been the stated policy of Western governments for 60 years now. If you want sound bites or quotes or documents, those can all be pulled out easily but that's like taking about the theory of free trade; we're not talking about abstracts notions, this is literally stated policy. Bill Clinton famously stated in 1996 to applause that by 2050 there will be no ethnic majority in the United States. In the case of Europe, part of the entire anti-fascist social engineering project is to eradicate European identity and nationalist sentiments.
More to the point, a nation is not an economy and its people are not staff members. Our leaders should not think "there's too few people in this country, they should be replaced". Oncollapsing birth rates in Asia, places like Japan are massively overpopulated. Why does Japan need 150 million people on an island the size of California? Why does the US need 300 million people? Why does England need millions more people on its tiny landmass? Is it necessary to destroy the ethnic makeup of these countries to ensure the line always goes up? The move away from tertiary economies means that we don't need the same amount of people we did in 1950.
This is all a bit like saying, "my kids are moving out of the house, I should find other people to move in and pretend to be my kids".The point that Musk so blantatly misses is that the people - the kids - are my race, my ethnos. They are part of a chain that spans thousands of years and wanting us to perpetuate is natural and right.
The only legitimate purpose of the state is to guarantee the posterity of the people that constitute that state: the English, the German, the Polish. Nothing else is truly legitimate, or if you prefer, as important. The purpose of the state is not to replace its people to guarantee pensions. That's akin to a fire department burning down houses.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
3hr ago
I went to the trouble of writing an effort post somewhere that was read by like 8 people, so I'll just reproduce the primary bit, and tack on additional commentary at the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy
Large-scale international reviews of scientific studies have concluded that psychotherapy is effective for numerous conditions.[8][22]
One line of research consistently finds that supposedly different forms of psychotherapy show similar effectiveness. According to The Handbook of Counseling Psychology: "Meta-analyses of psychotherapy studies have consistently demonstrated that there are no substantial differences in outcomes among treatments". The handbook states that there is "little evidence to suggest that any one psychological therapy consistently outperforms any other for any specific psychological disorders. This is sometimes called the Dodo bird verdict after a scene/section in Alice in Wonderland where every competitor in a race was called a winner and is given prizes".[151]
Further analyses seek to identify the factors that the psychotherapies have in common that seem to account for this, known as common factors theory; for example the quality of the therapeutic relationship, interpretation of problem, and the confrontation of painful emotions.[152][153][page needed][154][155]
Outcome studies have been critiqued for being too removed from real-world practice in that they use carefully selected therapists who have been extensively trained and monitored, and patients who may be non-representative of typical patients by virtue of strict inclusionary/exclusionary criteria. Such concerns impact the replication of research results and the ability to generalize from them to practicing therapists.[153][156]
However, specific therapies have been tested for use with specific disorders,[157] and regulatory organizations in both the UK and US make recommendations for different conditions.[158][159][160]
The Helsinki Psychotherapy Study was one of several large long-term clinical trials of psychotherapies that have taken place. Anxious and depressed patients in two short-term therapies (solution-focused and brief psychodynamic) improved faster, but five years long-term psychotherapy and psychoanalysis gave greater benefits. Several patient and therapist factors appear to predict suitability for different psychotherapies.[161]
Meta-analyses have established that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic psychotherapy are equally effective in treating depression.[162]
The bolded section is the one I can't easily verify, at least not when it's 9 am and I've been up all night studying.
Specifically regarding CBT, I found the following metanalysis-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23870719/
Results: A total of 115 studies met inclusion criteria. The mean effect size (ES) of 94 comparisons from 75 studies of CBT and control groups was Hedges g = 0.71 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.79), which corresponds with a number needed to treat of 2.6. However, this may be an overestimation of the true ES as we found strong indications for publication bias (ES after adjustment for bias was g = 0.53), and because the ES of higher-quality studies was significantly lower (g = 0.53) than for lower-quality studies (g = 0.90). The difference between high- and low-quality studies remained significant after adjustment for other study characteristics in a multivariate meta-regression analysis. We did not find any indication that CBT was more or less effective than other psychotherapies or pharmacotherapy. Combined treatment was significantly more effective than pharmacotherapy alone (g = 0.49).
Conclusions: There is no doubt that CBT is an effective treatment for adult depression, although the effects may have been overestimated until now. CBT is also the most studied psychotherapy for depression, and thus has the greatest weight of evidence. However, other treatments approach its overall efficacy.
And when speaking of CBT as applied to more psychiatric conditions:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/
We identified 269 meta-analytic studies and reviewed of those a representative sample of 106 meta-analyses examining CBT for the following problems: substance use disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, depression and dysthymia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, insomnia, personality disorders, anger and aggression, criminal behaviors, general stress, distress due to general medical conditions, chronic pain and fatigue, distress related to pregnancy complications and female hormonal conditions. Additional meta-analytic reviews examined the efficacy of CBT for various problems in children and elderly adults. The strongest support exists for CBT of anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, bulimia, anger control problems, and general stress. Eleven studies compared response rates between CBT and other treatments or control conditions. CBT showed higher response rates than the comparison conditions in 7 of these reviews and only one review reported that CBT had lower response rates than comparison treatments. In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized-controlled studies. Moreover, except for children and elderly populations, no meta-analytic studies of CBT have been reported on specific subgroups, such as ethnic minorities and low income samples.
Addressing the specific claims of similar efficacy to the forms of therapy based on pseudoscientific principles:
CBT for depression was more effective than control conditions such as waiting list or no treatment, with a medium effect size (van Straten, Geraedts, Verdonck-de Leeuw, Andersson, & Cuijpers, 2010; Beltman, Oude Voshaar, & Speckens, 2010). However, studies that compared CBT to other active treatments, such as psychodynamic treatment, problem-solving therapy, and interpersonal psychotherapy, found mixed results. Specifically, meta-analyses found CBT to be equally effective in comparison to other psychological treatments (e.g., Beltman, Oude Voshaar, & Speckens, 2010; Cuijpers, Smit, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, & Andersson, 2010; Pfeiffer, Heisler, Piette, Rogers, & Valenstein, 2011). Other studies, however, found favorable results for CBT (e.g. Di Giulio, 2010; Jorm, Morgan, & Hetrick, 2008; Tolin, 2010). For example, Jorm and colleagues (2008) found CBT to be superior to relaxation techniques at post-treatment. Additionally, Tolin (2010) showed CBT to be superior to psychodynamic therapy at both post-treatment and at six months follow-up, although this occurred when depression and anxiety symptoms were examined together.
Compared to pharmacological approaches, CBT and medication treatments had similar effects on chronic depressive symptoms, with effect sizes in the medium-large range (Vos, Haby, Barendregt, Kruijshaar, Corry, & Andrews, 2004). Other studies indicated that pharmacotherapy could be a useful addition to CBT; specifically, combination therapy of CBT with pharmacotherapy was more effective in comparison to CBT alone (Chan, 2006).
In the particular case of BPD, after talking to @Throwaway05 I looked into the actual benefit of DBT, and was surprised to see that it was genuinely far more effective than I expected. Somewhere around the ballpark of 50% success rates in curbing symptoms and letting quite a few of them lead entirely unremarkable and functional lives. If 50% sounds underwhelming, wait till you hear the typical cure rates I'm used to.
So:
Is therapy and therapy speak actually harmful to people that have mental illness?
A clear no. The evidence base is nigh unimpeachable, even if, as discussed above, the most bullshit insanity inducing forms like Freudian or Lacanian psychotherapy still beat placebo.
My personal working hypothesis is that therapy acts as a decent substitute for a friend, a non-judgemental and understanding one who has seemingly endless time to listen to your problems, and is forbidden, on the pain of losing the way they make a living, from disclosing your troubles. Unfortunately, quite a few people genuinely lack actual good friends, so even such as ersatz substitute has notable effects.
This is an entirely different question from the fad we've been having for quite a few years of "therapy culture", or the insistence of people to co-opt/misuse therapy speak to lend their bullshit legitimacy. Then again, there are practising Freudian and Lacanian therapists, and few other people seem to have the same burning urge I have to burn their houses down. Even then, I must concede they beat placebo, as well as the dead horse that is repressed penis envy.
Anyway, therapy seems to beat placebo, and works synergistically with drugs, even if you cynically notice that therapy based off nonsense does much the same thing as more considered approaches, but it's not in dispute that it works. At least I have the consolation of being able to throw drugs at people instead of just talking at them as a licensed shrink in training, for all the quibbling about if SSRIs work, ain't nobody claiming their ADHD isn't being helped when they're zooted up on stimulants.
To conclude, is therapy helpful when administered by someone who knows what the fuck they're doing? Yes.
Are they/us responsible for random idiots using it as an obfuscation technique? Not really, though the upper echelons of HR are often staffed by people with degrees in psychology where I'm at.
Is it possibly a net negative for the set of {all people subjected to mealy mouthed terminology}? No clue, but you asked about the actually mentally ill, and you have my answer. No surprise that a few of them pick up on the lingo.
curious_straight_ca
4hr ago
I'm pretty sure you're the guy who's ban evaded ten times. Also, wasn't VDARE in the process of being shut down by the NY AG or something?
Law and institutions are passed down as the patrimony of a specific people, and work only for that people
I really doubt that different races have different tendencies towards specific kinds of political or legal institutions. Asians and Jews seem to adapt perfectly fine (as well as anyone else) to liberalism in the US, and whites have presided over a vast design space of political entities over the past few thousand years. And, not confident, I'd expect the non-IQ differences that you'd find between populations to, even if somehow they're important enough to care about race mixing, not look like differences in grand concepts like 'freedom vs authoritarianism'. Because the political thought and organizational complexity involved in such grand concepts is just large, and there's a huge space in between that and the low-level psychological differences you might see between populations. (Compare to, for instance, the hypothetical nebulous tendency among Jews to intellectually or morally subvert their host countries - that's rather questionable for object-level reasons, but you could see differences in psychological instincts leading to that in a way that it wouldn't lead to "asians cant do freedom and democracy"). Individuals that are intelligent enough will, whatever their instincts, try to understand and work within the environment around them, and that together with really basic human instincts is most of what you need to exist within capitalism, or liberalism, or whatever else. As an analogy, in the history of every human population you can find things that clearly resemble religion, and despite whatever differences exist today the smartest people of every race find their way to atheism.
It's simpler than that- the protesters are simply the classic story of the Golem who thinks he's a real boy. The protestors stupidly believe they are empowered by righteousness when in reality they are just walking LLMs who have been trained on a paradigm that was useful up until the point Israel needed to slaughter tens of thousands civilians and ethnically cleanse Gaza. Although it should be noted the paradigm is still very useful, the Golem is running amok on college campuses but is flexing as much political power as ever, directing legislation that continues down the European-style path of banning anti-Semitism, constantly flowing unlimited money to Israel, and controlling the media narrative.
All of this backlash is just reality hitting the protestors that they never had real power in the first place, and they do not now.
More options
Context Copy link